Here's a brief note on this: "The verse is not in א,B,L,W,Δ,Ψ, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, and the Armenian and Georgian versions." You didn't mention the Armenian or Georgian versions, so I thought I would post this comment. When it comes to textual criticism, it's important that we don't miss the wood (or forest) for the trees, in that, while the discussion of the authenticity of Mark 11:26 is an interesting one, it shouldn't impact our faith in anyway, since it's inclusion is Matthew 6:15 (albeit with different wording, but still the same meaning) is textually secure and certain, so the issue isn't, did Jesus say this, because both the ancient and majority of manuscripts agree that Jesus did say this phrase, the question now is, was this phrase in two Gospels initially or just in one? A lot of the textual variants in the New Testament fall under this question actually.
The issue with the brief note is that the ancient versions also contain the reading, in addition, the Old Latin which isn't cited in the NET apparatus, contains the passage and if I recall correctly, only contains the passage! As for the Armenian and Georgian mss, they really should be cited as a singular witness as the one is a direct result of the other. I believe the Georgian derived from the Armenian but I can't remember. With that being said, I agree that this one isn't AS important as many other witnesses, but since it's a full verse, and I'm currently in the midst of a series on these bigger variants it only makes sense to cover it :) I did not in part 1 that its mentioned two more times in Matthew, so I'm with you there :)
@@Dwayne_Green I see. Thank you for these videos btw. They're very interesting, especially for people like myself who is interested in textual variants and textual criticism. I wish more Christians found stuff like this interesting and worth investigating in as it really expands our knowledge of the scriptures that we have today and their history in transmission.
Thank you, Dwayne
Here's a brief note on this:
"The verse is not in א,B,L,W,Δ,Ψ, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, and the Armenian and Georgian versions."
You didn't mention the Armenian or Georgian versions, so I thought I would post this comment.
When it comes to textual criticism, it's important that we don't miss the wood (or forest) for the trees, in that, while the discussion of the authenticity of Mark 11:26 is an interesting one, it shouldn't impact our faith in anyway, since it's inclusion is Matthew 6:15 (albeit with different wording, but still the same meaning) is textually secure and certain, so the issue isn't, did Jesus say this, because both the ancient and majority of manuscripts agree that Jesus did say this phrase, the question now is, was this phrase in two Gospels initially or just in one? A lot of the textual variants in the New Testament fall under this question actually.
The issue with the brief note is that the ancient versions also contain the reading, in addition, the Old Latin which isn't cited in the NET apparatus, contains the passage and if I recall correctly, only contains the passage! As for the Armenian and Georgian mss, they really should be cited as a singular witness as the one is a direct result of the other. I believe the Georgian derived from the Armenian but I can't remember.
With that being said, I agree that this one isn't AS important as many other witnesses, but since it's a full verse, and I'm currently in the midst of a series on these bigger variants it only makes sense to cover it :) I did not in part 1 that its mentioned two more times in Matthew, so I'm with you there :)
@@Dwayne_Green I see. Thank you for these videos btw. They're very interesting, especially for people like myself who is interested in textual variants and textual criticism. I wish more Christians found stuff like this interesting and worth investigating in as it really expands our knowledge of the scriptures that we have today and their history in transmission.
Whether Mark 11:26 is original or not, it is a factual statement because we have other witnesses of this verse that is original.
@@rodneyjackson6181 Exactly. That was what I was getting at in my original comment.